Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 1790/2020 in Suit No. 1209/2020. 1 Order.
MHCC010052412020
Presented on : 24-11-2020
Registered on : 24-11-2020
Decided on : 27-11-2020
Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 3 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1790 OF 2020
IN
L. C. SUIT NO. 1209 OF 2020
Shriniwas Soundra Pandian ...Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others ...Defendants
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 27th NOVEMBER, 2020.
Mr. A.P.Khanduri, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mrs. Tondwalkar & Mrs. Mhatre, Advocate for Defendant Nos.1 and 2 /
MCGM.
ORDER
Plaintiff has preferred the motion to challenge the validity
and legality of notice dated 04/02/2019, Warrant of Attachment dated
07/11/2019 and 29/09/2020. It is contention of plaintiff that he has
-- 1 of 4 --
N/m No. 1790/2020 in Suit No. 1209/2020. 2 Order.
received a Warrant of Attachment for payment of tax of Rs.7,71,137/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy-one Thousand One Hundred Thirty-seven
Only).
2. Ld. advocate for plaintiff Mr. Khanduri submits that
plaintiff is ready to pay the tax to the extent of his share. It is replied by
ld. Adv. Tondwalkar for MCGM that it is already replied by the MCGM
that separation can be done after payment of entire tax.
REASONS FOR ORDER
3. Heard both side ld. advocate at sufficient length. Detail
reasons are given in order below Exh.1. It is observed by this Court that
in absence of partition by metes and bounds, the exact area allotted to
each co-owner cannot be determined. There is a checkered history
between the plaintiff and other co-owners. It is observed in specific
terms that plaintiff has hand in gloves with defendant no.3 and 4.
4. To avoid repetition, separate paragraph alongwith special
bullet points are given in order below Exh.1. The suit is not tenable in
view of Section 217 of the MMC Act. As various civil suits and petition
under Domestic Violence Act is pending between the parties, it was
expected on the part of plaintiff to claim for present relief in previous
litigation. It is concluded that suit is preferred by plaintiff when the
action of attachment came to be sought by the MCGM. Defendant no.3
Subbalaxmi, mother of plaintiff sold her share to the builder. He is not
party in present suit. Plaintiff is failed to challenge the sale deed
executed by her mother. In short, there is no prima facie case in favour
of plaintiff.
-- 2 of 4 --
N/m No. 1790/2020 in Suit No. 1209/2020. 3 Order.
5. There is no payment of single rupee in last fifteen years by
the plaintiff nor by any co-owner. Therefore, there is no balance of
convenience lies in favour of plaintiff. There will no irreparable loss
would cause to plaintiff as no tax came to be paid by any co-owner in
last fifteen years. In short, motion deserves to be dismissed. Hence the
order :
- ORDER -
1. Notice of Motion No. 1790/2020 stands dismissed, no
order of cost.
2. N/m No. 1790/2020 stands disposed off accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 27/11/2020. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 27/11/2020.
2. Transcribed on : 01/12/2020.
3. Signed on : 01/12/2020.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
-- 3 of 4 --
N/m No. 1790/2020 in Suit No. 1209/2020. 4 Order.
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
02/12/2020. 4.36 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 27/11/2020.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 01/12/2020.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 02/12/2020.
-- 4 of 4 --